585 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

Uzzy wrote...

Some writers write the same sort of thing excellently, and are among the best at their craft in that genre. Bioware have proven time and time again that they are masters at writing the fantasy epic, the latest of which was Dragon Age: Origins, an amazingly written fantasy epic. To compare it to LoTR, the greatest fantasy epic of all time, is quite the compliment, OP. Sometimes, a formula is used often cause it works and is actually quite good.

In DA2, Bioware tried writing a more personal story, something they've never tried before. It was ambitious, but ultimately a disaster of highly amusing proportions. It's a disjointed mess that is unclear on it's themes. Many personal stories in gaming, specifically RPG's, have turned out brilliantly. I'd highlight Obsidian as masters of that, as shown in KoTOR 2 and Mask of the Betrayer. Bioware didn't even get close with DA2, which was tragic really.

looks pretty clear on its themes to me....notice how almost every quest deals with the dark side of human nature.....the greed, the madness, the obsession, the extremism, and the hatred....making a conflict or situatuion worse. Notice almost all main quests carry the theme, the companion quests as well, and the secondary quests.

And KOTOR II is in the same boat as DAII, well written, but rushed and unfinished. But in KOTOR II, the plot is much worse impacted from its rushed nature. Even its restoration hasn't fixed all the problems.

[yaw]

txgoldrush wrote...

 Isabela has multiple angles on her and does some pretty unexpected things that you don't expect.

Stopped reading there.

[Uzzy]

Way to miss the main point. Anyway, KoTOR II is not in the same boat as DA II, not by a long shot. DA II isn't buggy, but what's there isn't worth saving. KoTOR II is buggy, unfinished and a real mess at the ending, but it's an amazing story.

[metalgirl-1]

First off, I love DAO a lot and I mean A LOT. I used to get up at five o'clock in the morning to play it before school. I'm certainly not a hater. But it is far from perfect and the way people treat it as this awesome game that rivals no other is ridiculous. DA2 did have improvements in some areas. DA2, in my opinion, had a good storyline that lacked real development and could have been amazing if it was more fleshed out. While DAO's storyline was very generic fantasy game. Not that it's bad thing, but DA2 was more interesting for me but executed poorly. The combat was much better, not very believable but it's a fantasy game. Use your imagination. I mean if the combat breaks your immersion you're thinking way too into the game. Compared to DAO, the armor looked awesome, the environments were cool but it sucked to see the same ones over and over and over AND OVER, but I blame that on time they had to make it. The rival/friend system I personally love because it just makes more sense than buying all the gifts in the game to gain loyalty and your companions have better reasons to follow you than "my mother told me to", "the maker told me to", or my favorite "I dunno. Let's go kill things. Like birds." The companions themselves were well written in both games. I hated some of them but if they weren't so well written I couldn't develop such hatred towards them. While DAO isn't perfect there were elements that I liked that were removed for DA2 (Weapon set swap, companion armor slots), and DA2 CERTAINLY isn't perfect but it is hardly as bad as people make it out to be. It had a lot of potential and it saddens me that it came out so lack-luster, but hopefully DA3 will get it right.

[Addai]

I actually laughed at the comparison to LOTR. Not sure if it's the Warden as Frodo or Loghain as Denethor that gets me the most. I think maybe it's realizing that if your thesis holds, Alistair is actually Sam and not Aragorn. Or maybe Morrigan is Sam... hehe. Anyway, it's a very silly comparison. The darkspawn have some similarities to orcs, but that's about it.  edit:  oh wait, I've got it- Morrigan is Gollum.  She does make a grab for the male Warden's precious!

As for gameplay, I hear people prefer DA2's. I dunno, I found AoE casting a chore and the exploding bodies and ninja waves so ridiculous that I mostly just shook my head. It was fun for a while, but ultimately disappointing, and not half the game Origins was, even with Origins' flaws. I haven't played with path 1.03 because it was long done for me by the time that came out.

Modifié par Addai67, 25 juin 2011 - 08:28 .

[Aaleel]

Both DA:O and DA2 have flaws, but there was one major difference for me between the two games.

None of the flaws in DA:O were big enough to make the game unplayable for me, whereas there were flaws in DA2 that made the game not fun for me to play.

Also the major flaws in DA2 ruined the game for me to the point that the smaller flaws probably bothered me more than they normally would have on their own.

Modifié par Aaleel, 25 juin 2011 - 08:14 .

[billy the squid]

txgoldrush wrote...

RageGT wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

/Thread

One for the thread, one for the OP! (who loves to write write write but actually says nothing! Well, nothing related to reality at least)

so its reality that DAO isn't generic? Please. Its just YOU DO NOT LIKE WHAT I AM SAYING, so you write me off...lol

Oh, I thought DAO is the holy grail, you can't bash that. And you can't praise DAII, its the spawn of the devil, so praising it is sacrilidge or idiotc.

Thats the culture the board is in and I am sick of it.

DAII does plenty thing wrong, I am not debating that. But I am saying DAII is far from terrible but DAO aint no classic.

DAO is a fantasy game and comes with the familiarity of fantasy games which most of us have played numerous times, there are elves, dwarves, humans and magic etc. Anything, but a fleeting glance shows that DAO is not a LOTR rip off, but it has similarities as all fantasy games do particularly as the setting is based on medieval Europe, which was the same setting as LOTR which bears similarities to every fantasy game to some extent. #

And no people don't like what you are saying due to the lack of coherent informed content, so you are regarded as a fool.

Is DAO the holy grail, no and no one here has claimed it to be so, apart from you. But, DAO has been bashed by people in places such as RPGcodex, who will bash everything that isn't a carbon copy of (insert old school RPG here) Yet, almost everyone who likes DAO has acknowledged its short comings varying fromthe gimped epilogues, bugs which still exist, pathing, execution of spells and skills etc.

However, I dislike DA2 and my criticism would not be any less of the game were it by a smaller developer? No, in fact I probably wouldn't have even considerd buying it and it would have been written off and forgotten.

And DA2 is a terrible game, depending on one's emphasis and attitude towards the changes and there happen to be a lot of people who don't like the direction, don't like the changes and think it was a rather poorly done game.

Is DAO a classic, well no, as it has its problems, but it was by and large embraced by a lot of players who haven't had anything similar in quite a while. In comparison, for me, DA2 felt a bit of a rushed mess which tried to change direction completely and only succeded disappointing a lot of people whilst not drawing enough new players.

[Merilsell]

yaw wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

 Isabela has multiple angles on her and does some pretty unexpected things that you don't expect.

Stopped reading there.

Well the thread is truly....entertaining...in its own special way. Anyone wants some popcorn?

[Yrkoon]

txgoldrush wrote...

 Isabela has multiple angles on her

But enough about her ******

and does some pretty unexpected things that you don't expect.

As opposed to doing doing some pretty unexpected things that you  do expect?

You know, over the past few months I've refrained from bashing the  companions in DA2 because I do think they're fairly well written, but  this comment from you is nonsense.  Isabella is straight up predictable.  She's a Pirate.  So right  from the get-go you know that she's going to be the  shady type.    From playing DA:O, you know she's going to be  a nympho.  She's a classic rogue, so you know she's going to steal.  She's one of Hawke's love interests, so you know she's not just gonna  permanently leave halfway through the game.

So... what does she do unexpectedly in DA2 again?  Nothing.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 25 juin 2011 - 08:25 .

[Lord_Valandil]

Yrkoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

 Isabela has multiple angles on her

You mean her breasts and ass?

Winner of the thread.

[casedawgz]

Hmm. I don't know. The OP is clearly either an idiot or a troll for the most part, but I do agree with him to some extent. I'm in the middle of a replay of DA2 and I'm actually enjoying it quite a bit more than I did the first time I played it, and I didn't even particularly dislike it then. DA:O's glacial pacing is real, and a turnoff. I wanted to preclude my DA2 replay with a DA:O replay, but as soon as I made it to Ostagar I just lost the urge. On the whole, yes, DA:O is probably a better game, but I don't think the divide in quality is TOO big. There are rather substantial problems with both games, but I would consider them both to be good games.

[xkg]

Merilsell wrote...



Well the thread is truly....entertaining...in its own special way. Anyone wants some popcorn?

Can I join you ?  I got my own popcorn

[por favor]

txgoldrush wrote...

Sorry, but most DAII characters aren't one trick ponies like the cast in DAO are. Is Isabela a one trick pony? Hell no. Look at how she consoles Hawke if the player is romancing her. Look how she looks after Merril.

So Isabela doing something seemingly out of character = her not being a one-trick-pony? Humor me...

- Morrigan starts out as a cold-hearted shrew with absolutely no grasp on companionship at all. She is emotionally reserved and distances herself from others. However, as you get to know her and develop a bond with her, she soon shows her soft side and tells the Warden "thank you for teaching me what friendship is all about. Before meeting you, I didn't know what friendship was." 

So how is Morrigan a one-trick-pony despite doing something out of character, but Isabela isn't?

Many times I find the companions doing unexpecting things or hold unexpected views, you don't see this in DAO.

Oh really? Alistair agreeing to become King wasn't unexpected? Zevran falling in love with the Warden wasn't unexpected? Morrigan showing her soft side and thanking the Warden for teaching her what friendship truly was wasn't unexpected? 

And how is the dialogue oversimplified, its not.

Let's see...maybe because instead of a large list of diverse dialogue choices, you're left with three options: "peaceful," "sarcastic," and "assh&le"? Oh, and let's not forget that little heart for "romance." Really, you don't even have to READ the dialogue. Just keep selecting certain pictures. If that isn't oversimplified, I don't know what is.

The prblem with DAII bashers is that they critcize the game for things it doesn't do wrong, or base their opinions on things that are not true.

Yes, because DA2 is completely flawless in every way whatsoever and DA2 "bashers" are all liars that have nothing better to do than complain about the imaginary flaws of DA2.

Modifié par por favor, 25 juin 2011 - 08:34 .

[billy the squid]

txgoldrush wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

por favor wrote...

I stopped reading OP's post when he compared Alistair to Aragorn.

The fact that he is the rightful king of the kingdom under attack who also returns to the kingdom to face the threat, its a VERY fair comparision.

Yes, if one ignores the fact that Aragorn is the descendent of the kings of Arnor not of Gondor before the split of the numenorean realm , and the legitimate heir, not actually human, but a dunidain, his quest was to protect the ring bearer and will always become king of Gondor ad unite the lands of men. 

Whereas Alistar is the bastard son of Maric and a star struck maid, he was always in Ferelden as far as we know and has never been the legitimate or rightful king, he is a bit of a lovable goof and isn't going to unite the country without some serious political clout from Arl Eamon, Anora, The Human Noble or his chancellor, his future is entirely at the player's discretion varying from wandering drunk, staying as a warden, marring Anora, marrying the Human noble, ruling alone, or even ending up dead.

But, keep grasping at straws.

DAO is guilty of being similar to most high fantasy games in the context of broad strokes, looking at the detail it is different, but familiar. DA2, the nobody rises to power, wow so original.

No I a m not grasping at straws....the fact remains that Alistair can play a very similiar role that Aragon does, that just cannot be denied. Is there differences, yes, but the role can be the same.

So, because there is an outcome where Alistar can become king, despite all the other endings, he plays the same role as Aragorn? Even though as I have given resons and stated explicitly his character and the actions are not similar in the slightest.

Please illuminate for me how you came to the conclusion they are similar, apart from Alistair who may become king dependent on the player's choices.

If Alister becomes king..he plays the same role. The rightful heir of the throne comes and helps save the kingdom from the orcish threat. Is his personalty different, yes, is some of his actions, yes, but the role is very similiar if he ceomes king.

Right so ignoring that tiny part were I said explain how they are similar "apart from Alistair who may become king dependent on the player's choices."

He is actually entirely different and his position as ruler of Ferelden is rather superfluous and a single outcome out of several wholly different endings in the last 2 /3 hours of a 50-60 hour game which ignores the rest of the game and the entire LOTR trilogy when Aragorn only becomes king at the end.

But, your reasoning is that they are similar because one may end up as king and the other one will always do so. By this reasoning any fantasy game which allows the player to become ruler and defeat an enemy is a cliche. Hell using this logic ME is actually actually a generic fantasy game with guns because you are defeating an ancient evil which is trying to destroy humanity. Dragon age 2 was no different, the rise of a commoner to a position of power, it has been done before, it is how it has been done which will set the story apart from the others

This is a ridiculous line of arguement as all stories will one way or another bare similar hallmarks if they are attempting to tell a similar story it is the writing and the reader's/ player's involvement empathy with the characters and the detail's in the lore and universe in which it is set which attracts people.   

Modifié par billy the squid, 25 juin 2011 - 10:19 .

[Addai]

Uzzy wrote...
In DA2, Bioware tried writing a more personal story, something they've never tried before. It was ambitious, but ultimately a disaster of highly amusing proportions. It's a disjointed mess that is unclear on it's themes. Many personal stories in gaming, specifically RPG's, have turned out brilliantly. I'd highlight Obsidian as masters of that, as shown in KoTOR 2 and Mask of the Betrayer. Bioware didn't even get close with DA2, which was tragic really.

To actually try to wrest something decent from this thread, I have to say that I believe the writers were hampered not by inability to tell a personal story, but by management expectations to make it AWESOME DUDE.  You can kind of see that they were afraid it would be too slow (as in the prologue where we get no prologue at all on Hawke's family) or not big enough (pink weapons of mass destruction) or not hard enough (2 end bosses instead of one, ruining any sense of resolution to either ending).

[Nerevar-as]

metalgirl-1 wrote...
The combat was much better, not very believable but it's a fantasy game. Use your imagination. I mean if the combat breaks your immersion you're thinking way too into the game. Compared to DAO, the armor looked awesome, the environments were cool but it sucked to see the same ones over and over and over AND OVER, but I blame that on time they had to make it. The rival/friend system I personally love because it just makes more sense than buying all the gifts in the game to gain loyalty and your companions have better reasons to follow you than "my mother told me to", "the maker told me to", or my favorite "I dunno. Let's go kill things. Like birds." The companions themselves were well written in both games. I hated some of them but if they weren't so well written I couldn't develop such hatred towards them. While DAO isn't perfect there were elements that I liked that were removed for DA2 (Weapon set swap, companion armor slots), and DA2 CERTAINLY isn't perfect but it is hardly as bad as people make it out to be. It had a lot of potential and it saddens me that it came out so lack-luster, but hopefully DA3 will get it right.

I blame it on the people who made it. Even if it was becuase of EA pressure, it´s still their fault. Don´t know how or why BW went into EA, so I don´t know if they could have negotiated less EA meddling back then.

About combat, think about this: you´ve seen LotR, FotR and TTT. Then in RotK everybody fights as in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Legolas was pretty close, and the oliphant worked as unintended comedy for that). It´s a fantasy doesn´t cut it. If the setting doesn´t have rules and follows them, the immersion gets hurt.

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 25 juin 2011 - 08:42 .

[bluebullets]

not overrated. underrated*

[casedawgz]

Nerevar-as wrote...

metalgirl-1 wrote...
The combat was much better, not very believable but it's a fantasy game. Use your imagination. I mean if the combat breaks your immersion you're thinking way too into the game. Compared to DAO, the armor looked awesome, the environments were cool but it sucked to see the same ones over and over and over AND OVER, but I blame that on time they had to make it. The rival/friend system I personally love because it just makes more sense than buying all the gifts in the game to gain loyalty and your companions have better reasons to follow you than "my mother told me to", "the maker told me to", or my favorite "I dunno. Let's go kill things. Like birds." The companions themselves were well written in both games. I hated some of them but if they weren't so well written I couldn't develop such hatred towards them. While DAO isn't perfect there were elements that I liked that were removed for DA2 (Weapon set swap, companion armor slots), and DA2 CERTAINLY isn't perfect but it is hardly as bad as people make it out to be. It had a lot of potential and it saddens me that it came out so lack-luster, but hopefully DA3 will get it right.

I blame it on the people who made it. Even if it was becuase of EA pressure, it´s still their fault. Don´t know how or why BW went into EA, so I don´t know if they could have negotiated less EA meddling back then.

About combat, think about this: you´ve seen LotR, FotR and TTT. Then in RotK everybody fights as in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Legolas was pretty close, and the oliphant worked as unintended comedy for that). It´s a fantasy doesn´t cut it. If the setting doesn´t have rules and follows them, the immersion gets hurt.

Because Legolas didn't surf down a staircase on a shield picking off orcs with arrows in the Two Towers.

[Nerevar-as]

metalgirl-1 wrote...

First off, I love DAO a lot and I mean A LOT. I used to get up at five o'clock in the morning to play it before school. I'm certainly not a hater. But it is far from perfect and the way people treat it as this awesome game that rivals no other is ridiculous. DA2 did have improvements in some areas. DA2, in my opinion, had a good storyline that lacked real development and could have been amazing if it was more fleshed out. While DAO's storyline was very generic fantasy game. Not that it's bad thing, but DA2 was more interesting for me but executed poorly.

Act I: no story, a bit of build up for Act II.

Act II: no real complains about the qunari plot (gameplay however...)

Act III: things go to hell because everybody significant is nuts.

The starting idea is interesting, but almost everything involving execution failed. I have no problem about the more personal story and no saving the world, you can also make good stories out of that (just finished reading Bujold´s Chalion books), but that alone doesn´t make it better than a generic story or give it more merit, the way the stories are developed do. IMHO, Origins delivered, DA2 save for puntual moments failed.

[txgoldrush]

yaw wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

 Isabela has multiple angles on her and does some pretty unexpected things that you don't expect.

Stopped reading there.

So your expect Isabela to call Aveline your family even if she fights with Aveline constantly. Her relationship with Aveline is far more complex than any relationship in DAO ever was.

[Nerevar-as]

casedawgz wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...

metalgirl-1 wrote...
The combat was much better, not very believable but it's a fantasy game. Use your imagination. I mean if the combat breaks your immersion you're thinking way too into the game. Compared to DAO, the armor looked awesome, the environments were cool but it sucked to see the same ones over and over and over AND OVER, but I blame that on time they had to make it. The rival/friend system I personally love because it just makes more sense than buying all the gifts in the game to gain loyalty and your companions have better reasons to follow you than "my mother told me to", "the maker told me to", or my favorite "I dunno. Let's go kill things. Like birds." The companions themselves were well written in both games. I hated some of them but if they weren't so well written I couldn't develop such hatred towards them. While DAO isn't perfect there were elements that I liked that were removed for DA2 (Weapon set swap, companion armor slots), and DA2 CERTAINLY isn't perfect but it is hardly as bad as people make it out to be. It had a lot of potential and it saddens me that it came out so lack-luster, but hopefully DA3 will get it right.

I blame it on the people who made it. Even if it was becuase of EA pressure, it´s still their fault. Don´t know how or why BW went into EA, so I don´t know if they could have negotiated less EA meddling back then.

About combat, think about this: you´ve seen LotR, FotR and TTT. Then in RotK everybody fights as in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Legolas was pretty close, and the oliphant worked as unintended comedy for that). It´s a fantasy doesn´t cut it. If the setting doesn´t have rules and follows them, the immersion gets hurt.

Because Legolas didn't surf down a staircase on a shield picking off orcs with arrows in the Two Towers.

That still fell under elven superior balance to me (the man can walk a rope casually after all). He would need to be spidrman some moents while he climbed the oliphant. That´s also the reason I said everybody.

[Yrkoon]

txgoldrush wrote...

So your expect Isabela to call Aveline your family even if she fights with Aveline constantly. Her relationship with Aveline is far more complex than any relationship in DAO ever was.

Don't be silly.

Even Morrigan's relationship with Oghren is  more complex than Aveline vs. Isabela, and it was little more than comic relief.

[txgoldrush]

Yrkoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

 Isabela has multiple angles on her

But enough about her ******

and does some pretty unexpected things that you don't expect.

As opposed to doing doing some pretty unexpected things that you  do expect?

You know, over the past few months I've refrained from bashing the  companions in DA2 because I do think they're fairly well written, but  this comment from you is nonsense.  Isabella is straight up predictable.  She's a Pirate.  So right  from the get-go you know that she's going to be the  shady type.    From playing DA:O, you know she's going to be  a nympho.  She's a classic rogue, so you know she's going to steal.  She's one of Hawke's love interests, so you know she's not just gonna  permanently leave halfway through the game.

So... what does she do unexpectedly in DA2 again?  Nothing.

yes she is shady..thats the expected part...but her signs of maturity are not....you would not expect her to be the best one to comfort Hawke, to take care of Merrill, to toughen up a guard captain, and many times I picked options I thought she may like, nope, rivalry points. She is unpredictable many times percisely because she fits the predictable mold of a rogue.

[txgoldrush]

Yrkoon wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

So your expect Isabela to call Aveline your family even if she fights with Aveline constantly. Her relationship with Aveline is far more complex than any relationship in DAO ever was.

Don't be silly.

Even Morrigan's relationship with Oghren is  more complex than Aveline vs. Isabela, and it was little more than comic relief.

umm no...

Its much more than comic relief....Isabela actually truly wants the best for Aveline, but she toughens her up by getting under her skin. Its taken two archetypes that most likely would hate eachother, and then twisting it to where they support eachother by antagonizing eachother.

[Yrkoon]

txgoldrush wrote...


yes she is shady..thats the expected part...but her signs of maturity are not....you would not expect her to be the best one to comfort Hawke, to take care of Merrill, to toughen up a guard captain, and many times I picked options I thought she may like, nope, rivalry points. She is unpredictable many times percisely because she fits the predictable mold of a rogue.

Have you been hit on the head too many times?   She's unpredictable because she's... predictable?  Say what?
 
Of course I'd expect her to comfort Hawke, be protective of Merril, and teach Aveline a thing or two about street smarts.   Rogues in RPGs are social butterflies.  That's their innate personality.  It's a trope.  A cliche.   And Isabela plays that part to a *T* all the way through the game.

There's NOTHING unpredictable or unique about her personality.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 25 juin 2011 - 09:08 .